Thanks @omniharmonic for submitting this proposal.
Evaluated using my steward scorecard — reviewed and iterated manually for consistency, clarity, and alignment with GG24 criteria.
Submission Compliance
- Word count: ~1,200
- Template sections present and structured
- Sensemaking section cites ecosystem projects but lacks defined methodology or data aggregation
- Verdict: Compliant (soft flag on sensemaking analysis)
Scorecard Evaluation
Total Score: 12 / 16
| Criteria | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Clarity | 2 | Civic legitimacy + governance breakdowns framed as urgent and tied to Ethereum’s role |
| Sensemaking Approach | 1 | Cites relevant case studies, but no clear research method or aggregation process |
| Gitcoin Fit | 2 | Ethereum as infrastructure for governance is well aligned with Gitcoin’s mission |
| Fundraising Plan | 1 | Previous $30K round mentioned, no current co-funders confirmed |
| Capital Allocation Design | 2 | Pluralistic approach (QF, streaming, impact attestations, peer review) is thoughtful and coherent |
| Domain Expertise | 1 | Categories of experts listed; no confirmed stewards named |
| Clarity & Completeness | 2 | Structured, readable, makes a clear case for domain-level funding |
| Gitcoin Support Required | 1 | Will require scaffolding (working group, subround structure, ops support) to execute effectively |
Recommendation
Score: 12 / 16 → Eligible, High Priority (Conditional)
Strong proposal with a strategic frame and operational precedent. The OpenCivics Consortium has a track record of public goods work in this space. The scope is broad but coherent. Before ratification, I’d like to see:
- A confirmed steward or working group
- One co-funding partner in active discussion
- Defined execution path for one or two sub-rounds as a launch point
- Light-touch sensemaking methodology added (e.g., sourcing/aggregation logic for project mapping)